Causal sensitivity analysis aims to provide bounds for causal effect estimates in the presence of unobserved confounding. However, existing methods for causal sensitivity analysis are per-instance procedures, meaning that changes to the dataset, causal query, sensitivity level, or treatment require new computation. Here, we instead present an in-context learning approach. Specifically, we propose an amortized approach to causal sensitivity analysis based on prior-data fitted networks. A key challenge is that the sensitivity bounds are not directly available when sampling training data. To address this, we develop a general prior-data construction that is applicable across the class of generalized treatment sensitivity models. Our construction involves a Lagrangian scalarization of the objective to generate training labels for the bounds through a tradeoff between causal effect min/max-imization and sensitivity model violation, which avoids model-specific analytical derivations. We further show that, under standard convexity and linearity conditions, our objective recovers the full Pareto frontier of solutions. Empirically, we demonstrate our amortized approach across various datasets, causal queries, and sensitivity levels, where our approach achieves a test-time computation that is orders of magnitude faster than per-instance methods. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first foundation model for in-context learning for causal sensitivity analysis.

Off-policy evaluation of sequential decision policies from observational data is necessary in applications of batch reinforcement learning such as education and healthcare. In such settings, however, unobserved variables confound observed actions, rendering exact evaluation of new policies impossible, i.e, unidentifiable. We develop a robust approach that estimates sharp bounds on the (unidentifiable) value of a given policy in an infinite-horizon problem given data from another policy with unobserved confounding, subject to a sensitivity model. We consider stationary unobserved confounding and compute bounds by optimizing over the set of all stationary state-occupancy ratios that agree with a new partially identified estimating equation and the sensitivity model. We prove convergence to the sharp bounds as we collect more confounded data. Although checking set membership is a linear program, the support function is given by a difficult nonconvex optimization problem. We develop approximations based on nonconvex projected gradient descent and demonstrate the resulting bounds empirically.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that an observed association without known mechanism must be in want of a causal estimate. However, Causal estimates from observational data will be biased in the presence of'unobserved confounding'. Nevertheless, we might hope that the influence of unobserved confounders is weak relative to a'large' estimated effect. The purpose of this paper is to develop Austen plots, a sensitivity analysis tool to aid such judgments by making it easier to reason about potential bias induced by unobserved confounding. We formalize confounding strength in terms of how strongly the unobserved confounding influences treatment assignment and outcome. For a target level of bias, an Austen plot shows the minimum values of treatment and outcome influence required to induce that level of bias. Austen plots generalize the classic sensitivity analysis approach of Imbens [Imb03]. Critically, Austen plots allow any approach for modeling the observed data. We illustrate the tool by assessing biases for several real causal inference problems, using a variety of machine learning approaches for the initial data analysis.

This problem is known to be complicated by many unobserved confounders.

Observational data is often readily available in large quantities, but can lead to biased causal effect estimates due to the presence of unobserved confounding. Recent works attempt to remove this bias by supplementing observational data with experimental data, which, when available, is typically on a smaller scale due to the time and cost involved in running a randomised controlled trial. In this work, we prove a theorem that places fundamental limits on this ``best of both worlds'' approach. Using the framework of impossible inference, we show that although it is possible to use experimental data to \emph{falsify} causal effect estimates from observational data, in general it is not possible to \emph{validate} such estimates. Our theorem proves that while experimental data can be used to detect bias in observational studies, without additional assumptions on the smoothness of the correction function, it can not be used to remove it. We provide a practical example of such an assumption, developing a novel Gaussian Process based approach to construct intervals which contain the true treatment effect with high probability, both inside and outside of the support of the experimental data. We demonstrate our methodology on both simulated and semi-synthetic datasets and make the \href{https://github.com/Jakefawkes/Obs_and_exp_data}{code available}.